There's angles to socialization. If a person with brain issues gets free doctor visits and a medicine, that is at cost to society.
If they are safe to be around and are able to hold a job or have children, then there's societal benefits gained. One could consider the treatment costs as investments.
If that person was untreated and they did something unpleasant or bad in public, or ended up in prison, that also has a cost to society though it might be more complex to quantify.
I think motorcyclists should pay more for health insurance insurance considering they will use it way more often no matter how well a driver they are, the risks are simply always present.
I don't see why not. Maybe no need to ban altogether, but a heavy tax on both might be useful. For motorbikes maybe just exclude accidents from coverage.
There's angles to socialization. If a person with brain issues gets free doctor visits and a medicine, that is at cost to society.
If they are safe to be around and are able to hold a job or have children, then there's societal benefits gained. One could consider the treatment costs as investments.
If that person was untreated and they did something unpleasant or bad in public, or ended up in prison, that also has a cost to society though it might be more complex to quantify.
You are assuming treatment benefits, but the comment was about "recreational" use and its consequences.
Does that line of reasoning extend to things like fast food and motorcycles in your eyes? Not trying to undermine your point, just genuinely curious.
I think motorcyclists should pay more for health insurance insurance considering they will use it way more often no matter how well a driver they are, the risks are simply always present.
If they die more often in accidents, and their organs are harvested from that, they should pay less though, right?
1 reply →
> things like fast food and motorcycles in your eyes?
motorcycles...? in... my eyes?
What wizardry is this? First "computers in my brain", now this. I'll have the singularity that you're smoking pls :)
EDIT: was at first genuinely confused, and then tickled by my own misunderstanding
'in your view' would probably have been a better choice of words.
I don't see why not. Maybe no need to ban altogether, but a heavy tax on both might be useful. For motorbikes maybe just exclude accidents from coverage.
I guess they aren’t very widespread anymore, but should this cover police who ride motorbikes? Or farm/ranch workers (they might ride ATVs)?
I guess we could do something like:
But I think we will have trouble puzzling out the last term!
5 replies →
> For motorbikes maybe just exclude accidents from coverage.
From personal experience, this is de-facto true regardless of what anyone thinks the law says.